Very thoughtful what-if article. Thank you for publishing it. You make the excellent point that a significant amount of death and destruction in Western and Central Europe occurred in the period June 1944 through April 1945. How much could have been avoided, and whether it should have been avoided, is an interesting question. I further think that there is a lot to commend your analysis of the resulting situation if the Stauffenberg bomb had been successful in killing Hitler. Regarding the other two situations, I _respectfully_ disagree. In both the cases you cite, there are great similarities. As the Germans armies retreated to the German homeland, the character of the war changed to a defense of family and home. Also, remember that there was strategic decision by the allies to invade, capture, and occupy the German homeland as well as the requirement for unconditional surrender. The German military was going to stiffen on that basis alone. Second, in both cases, the allied armies outran their supply and organizational abilities. This was a reflection of the technology and understanding of organizational abilities of those times. Even the vaunted German "Blitzkrieg" in its heyday hit such limits and was forced to pause. Third, it may be that, had the Soviets been a different nation and army, they might have been better able detect the German weakpoints and to have conducted a German style offensive and destroyed the German eastern armies more efficiently. Of course, had the Soviets not been Soviets in World War 2, they might have destroyed the Germans in 1941. Or collapsed in the first few weeks of the war, as the French had done the previous year. Fourth, in the case the Allies, it may well be true, that had the meager availible supplies been distributed in a different way, and had there been no other consequences, there might have been even more effective offensive. Certainly, that view has been put forward by a number of different groups, from supporters of various schools of military thought as well as supporters of specific generals, all the way through to Anglo-phobes. My own view is that there were very important political reasons for the division of supplies. And in the end, military should be subordinate to the political rather than the reverse. Again thank you for your thoughtful and well article. By the way, I just picked up your book and look forward to reading it!